[bcc: dev@svn; switching lists...] Yeah. I'll follow up to a more appropriate list, as we're getting into Infra bits rather than svn bits :-)
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Tony Stevenson <pct...@apache.org> wrote: > cc+= David Nalley (for oversight, the fact there is an 'issue', etc). > > Hey Greg, > > Sorry I didn't mean to use beta. You are indeed correct, as usual, they > are releases. :) > > I will state again, that while I appreciate that differing versions of > httpd and/or subversion (and the libraries it uses) is far from a a trivial > task for us. This will essentially mean migrating and replacing the current > EU slave to bring it into line with the US master. You may recall that the > US master move (and therefore migration) was forced upon us when eris died > over a year ago now. > > This forced move meant the host was put on a different OS, which > introduced the disparity between the EU and US today. > > Fixing this is something that Infra would consider a project piece. i.e. > not something we can just slot in this week. Given the projects on the > table already, and the skills in Infra to to do the work being tied up in > other projects; it is going to be weeks before there is any available > cycles to address it. > > I understand this might not be what you want to hear, but it is a fact of > where we are in terms of standardising, and automating everything. > > With all that being said, I suspect you would not want us to deploy 1.9 > onto a single host (US) leaving the EU slave where it is now? > > > Tony > > > > > On Tue, 1 Dec 2015, at 08:45 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > We've *always* been willing to help. > > Note these are not "beta" (like you said back in October). They are 1.9.x > release packages. We don't have to do a repository upgrade at this time, > but we may want to later. Note that you have different httpd packages on us > and eu. That should be fixed first. And then, yes: upgrading the server > means upgrading mod_dav_svn. > > Part of the reason for upgrade is to get everybody better performance, but > also to bring us and eu into alignment. Having the write-through proxy be a > different stack is not "bad", but it certainly isn't Good. > > Thanks, > -g > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Tony Stevenson <pct...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Greg, > > In principal this is fine, yes. If the *PMC* are going to vouch for these > binaries, and are willing to help support Infra if/when they are deployed. > > Of course, I will re-iterate that Infra will roll back if any forward > rolling is catastrophic to the service. We are also likely to want to roll > up the repo, in to a tarball or some such before hitting the big red > button. JIC we need to roll back, and we cannot undo svnadmin upgrade > (assuming such an action is needed too). > > Perhaps a crash course for the PMC about the stack as is, and how we get > to a deployed update is a good idea? Also, we'd like/need a JIRA issue > for each bump you want (to contain any notices about steps required, or > library changes and so on). > > Will you expect us to roll dav_svn et al each time too? If so we should > ensure that your package names match those upstream in Ubuntu ( I assume > James can cope with that, given his email address ;) ). > > > On Sun, 29 Nov 2015, at 10:00 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > Does this work for you, Tony? > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 10:04 PM, James McCoy <james...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:53:43AM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote: > > Is somebody still working on this? > > I had mentioned on IRC that I'd provide a PPA based on my Debian > packaging. I forgot to follow up and state that it's available: > > https://launchpad.net/~jamessan/+archive/ubuntu/subversion > > Cheers, > -- > James > GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <james...@debian.org> > > > > Cheers > > -- > Tony > > > > > Cheers > > -- > Tony > >
